Are prolifers inconsistent?

@RandalRauser

What really gets me is being ostensibly prolife while wanting to block refugees with legit asylum claims…

Since Rauser is Canadian, I assume he's bitching about Canadian immigration policy. 

Speaking for myself, I'm all for a generous referee policy with regard to persecuted Christians. There is, though, no obligation to import Muslim timebombs into the country, who game the system under the ruse of "refugees" with "asylum" claims. 

…defending the right of angry, paranoid men to have AR-15s…

That's a clueless objection. There's a general right to self-defense. Private gun-ownership is a necessary means to exercise that right. 

It's not a right that singles out "angry, paranoid men". Rather, a general right, whether freedom of speech, driving a car, private property, &c., is an indiscriminate  group right. It carries the potential for abuse by particular individuals, but the right isn't conditional on an unpredictable outcome. Some people abuse the right to drive a car (e.g. drunk drivers), but that's not known in advance. Defending the general right to drive a car isn't specifically and intentionally defending the right of drunk drivers. Constitutional rights and civil rights are coarse-grained. There are tradeoffs in a free and open society. 

…shrugging your shoulders at the unfolding disaster of human-induced climate change…

Even assuming it's induced by humans, is it disastrous if Canadians enjoy longer summers and shorter warmer winters? 

And since developing countries refuse to cut back on carbon emissions, even though they are the primary polluters, any green police is unenforceable, and will simply wreck western economies. 

…fighting public healthcare, etc…

The question is what's economically feasible–as well as whether medical decision-makers are accountable to patients. 

Also, Rauser's green policies would destroy the prosperity required to support public healthcare. 

"American paganism"

https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/american-paganism

How many articles have we seen like this? 

The fake pic of the "separated" crying child. The linking of nationalism with racism, as if the USA is Iceland.'

Also, the flattening of human obligations, as if we have equal obligations to everyone. But a basic principle of "nationalism" is that you draw from the collective system what you contribute to the collective system. Many so-called "refugees" are simply looters who take without giving. They take what other people have put into the system.

America can't provide for all the needy desperate people of the world. That would turn America into the same hellhole some of them are fleeing from. People-groups must assume responsibility for their own national destiny.

Does the author of the article (David Albertson) leave his door unlocked to let whoever wants to come into his home and raid the kitchen while he's away at work?

Does he leave his keys in the car with the door unlocked for anyone who might like to use it or take it? Does he believe in private property?

Scoring virtue points

An exchange I had with Michael Bird on Facebook regarding his article:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/religion/2019/11/13/jesus-isnt-interested-americas-two-party-division/

Steve Hays

Michael's article is unintentionally comical. He fails to take into account his own cultural conditioning. He acts like the viewpoint of an Australian evangelical is the clear lens while the viewpoint of American evangelicals is the tinted lens. But why privilege an Australian evangelical perspective on American evangelicalism? What makes that more objective than American evangelical perspectives on Australian evangelicalism? Moreover, the same culture wars are duplicated in Australia. Bird himself is an outspoken politically active culture warrior. He thinks Jesus is on his side. So the whole analysis is an exercise in Michael talking to his own reflection in the bathroom mirror.

Michael Bird 

Steve, whoa. (1) I have no pretentions to viewing myself as some kind of political Switzerland, I do have my own political convictions, but I do not presume that they are the same as Jesus. I aspire to have a Jesus-kingdom to have a view! (2) My point is not "Pfft, American dumb asses." Rather it is more like Robert Froster, "Try to see yourself as others see you." (3) I would say that Australia does not have the same culture wars as America, e.g. everyone here believes in gun control and universal healthcare. As for me being a "culture warrior." I wouldn't say that, though I have written actively on social issues relating to the need for gambling reform and religious liberty in the face of bad government policy. Blessings. Mike Bird

Steve Hays 

i) Some social issues are political issues because social ethics spills over into law and public policy. That in turn is represented in the American 2-party system. So we can either vote for viable political candidates or we can sit out the election. But boycotting the electoral process has consequences, too.

ii) "Try to see yourself as others see you". 

I'm waiting for you to take your own advice. Your application of that adage is always one-sided: how Americans should see themselves through the eyes of an Australian chauvinist who constantly scores virtue points with his own peer group by badmouthin American society, domestic policy, and foreign policy. 

Since you brought it up, I'm struck by how many non-American elites are obsessed with the so-called American "gun culture". You are aware, are you not, that most of the gun violence in America is concentrated in a few large urban centers. 

Recently you noted that Detroit resembles a war zone. You are aware, are you not, that Detroit has been dominated by the Democrat establishment for decades.

Australian gun control. Do you think that's a constructive alternative to the American "gun culture"? From what I've read, Australian private citizens have been stripped of the ability to practice self-defense. Not only have they been disarmed with respect to handguns, but knives and even pepper spray. But they are allowed to carry whistles! 

Or what about London, with its epidemic of knifings and acid attacks. According to Peter Hitchens, the police don't patrol the streets to crack down on crime. Instead, they hide out in their stations, patrolling social media for perceived "hate speech". They don't protect the public, and they don't allow the public to protect themselves. But anything is better than the American "gun culture," right? 

What about Venezuelan security forces mowing down unarmed protesters. 

What about Hong Kong security forces (stooges of mainland Red China) attacking unarmed Protesters?

What about immigrant Muslim rape gangs assaulting unarmed women in Germany while the police either look the other way or cover for the rape gangs?

But anything is better than the American "gun culture," right?

DACA

I'm getting propaganda about DACA in my news feed. There are two ways to view DACA: on the merits or from a process standpoint. It's striking how many people think DACA is sacrosanct. But DACA was never enacted into law. It's simply a policy of the Obama administration. Executive policies can always be changed by the next administration. DACA is kepy alive by renegade judges who operate outside the law as members of the Resistance.

Even if you think DACA is a swell idea, so long as it's nothing more than Executive policy, it can be rescinded. If you think a president doesn't have the Constitutional right to revoke Executive policies of former administrations, if you think courts have the right to block the Trump administration from revoking DACA, you support a dictatorship. Our system is based on consent of the governed. We elect officials to represent our interests. If they fail, we can vote them out of office. 

To insist that Executive policies have the force of law, which can't be revoked by successive administrations, you don't believe in consent of the governed. The alternative is an unaccountable ruling class. 

Suppose a gov't official likes your house, or your car, or your daughter. What's to stop him from seizing whatever he wants for his own benefit? In a representative democracy, the law restrains him. But if secular progressives have their way, everyone will be at the mercy of a banana republic or totalitarian state. Think China, N. Korea, Stalinism, Papa/Baby Doc Duvalier, Robert Mugabe, &c. So many Americans are too stupid to think three steps deep. 

No second amendment in heaven?

No second amendment in heaven? Is it really possible? https://t.co/xBdrdQCr3D

— Tentative Apologist (@RandalRauser) August 13, 2019

Heaven is a gated community with armed security guards (cherubim). The archetype of border control with strict immigration protocols (e.g. no Muslims allowed). Nice to see Rauser is a Trumper at heart. 

Toilet water

1. AOC and Judy Chu are alleging "refugees" are being forced to drink toilet water.

a. On the contrary, I've read these "refugees" are drinking potable water from sinks attached to toilets. That's different from drinking directly from the toilet itself. Apparently this how many US public facilities (e.g. prisons) are set up as well.

b. In addition: "So this is what happened with the migrant and drinking water from toilet: she wanted water, didn’t know how to use the faucet in the cell, and drank from the toilet. She never told AOC that we made her drink from the toilet."

c. Regardless, the water in the US is generally cleaner and safer to drink than water in Mexico and other Latin American nations. (And arguably this includes toilet water in many cases.)

d. Americans are generously providing "refugees" with shelter, food, water, and so forth when in truth "refugees" aren't entitled to shelter, food, water, and other goods from Americans. Granted, what's provided is anything but glamorous, but why should it be glamorous? AOC and Chu act like "refugees" deserve a presidential suite at the Palms Resort in Vegas, a five course meal prepared by Gordon Ramsay, and a bottle of Beverly Hills 9OH2O. Why is their standard the standard that "refugees" should be accorded?

2. Progressives are condemning CBP for "illegally" refusing to process applications in a timely fashion when "refugees" are legally allowed to apply for asylum at the border.

a. I don't know the legal situation, but what's legal isn't necessarily what's ethical. In any case, I'm far more concerned with the ethics.

b. Not all of them are genuine "refugees". Perhaps not even the majority of them. Lots of miscreants in the pack.

c. No one is entitled to camp out on someone's front yard and demand the person has so many days to process their application to enter their house. That's absurd. Why would it be wrong if CBP simply rejected most "refugees" at the border? It's not as if CBP have infinite personnel and resources to expend on processing any and all comers.

d. However, even if they were genuine refugees, it would take a considerable amount of time to vet each of them (e.g. medical checks, re-settlement).

e. How are there suddenly thousands of "refugees" at our border? Isn't this rather suspicious in and of itself?

3. What about AOC's own behavior? She screamed at border patrol in a threatening manner the moment she arrived and didn't even bother touring the facilities. This suggests she doesn't care about what's really happening or not happening at the border. She doesn't care about finding the truth. She's already made up her mind. She's already got her agenda. She's just grinding an axe and preparing to hack away at anyone who disagrees with her.

Christian family values

Randal Rauser

James Dobson says media is not 'truthful' in reporting on migrant detention centers. Conservative Christian family values on display...

I’m questioning his family values. Dobson is silent on Trump’s policy of child separation and delaying of refugee claimants and incredibly suggests the government should “just deny these refugees access to this nation. Can’t we just send them back to their places of origin?”

That’s a violation of the UN Convention and Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees. It’s also a violation of basic humanity and compassion, not to mention the ethic of Jesus (Matthew 25:31-46). Dobson is a propagandist for an administration engaging in unChristian actions.

True family values would denounce the policy instituted by Jeff Sessions to separate children and demoralize parents. Shutting the border to refugees? Unbelievable.

https://randalrauser.com/2019/07/off-the-rails-debriefing-my-misunderstanding-with-paul-franks/

A revealing window into the mind of a progressive theologian:

i) It's not my objective to exegete Dobson's statements. He's not my spokesman. I'm more interested in Rauser's reaction.

ii) For Rauser, the UN is the moral and theological arbiter of what constitutes Christian family values. For Rauser, the Bible isn't the Christian moral authority but the UN. 

iii) Typically, Rauser cites Mt 25:31-46 out of context. But as standard commentaries explain, that has reference to persecuted Christians.

iv) Even if, for argument's sake, we grant Rauser's (mis-)interpretation, Jesus isn't Rauser's moral authority. Rauser is quite prepared to dismiss dominical teachings. He defends a Kenotic Christology where Jesus was a fallible child of his times. 

v) Whether the individuals are refugees is hardly a given. Many illegal immigrants (or even terrorists) game the system by pretending to be refugees or asylum-seekers.

vi) Christian family values are concentric. You have a greater duty to protect and provide for your own dependents.

vii) The policy antedates the Trump administration. 

viii) Is Rauser unaware of how much child-trafficking goes on under the guise of "refugees"? 

"Cages"

For a party that associates itself with Christianity to say it is okay to suggest that God would smile on the division of families at the hands of federal agents, that God would condone putting children in cages, has lost all claim to ever use religious language. #DemDebate pic.twitter.com/YfjQKOTm2J

— Pete Buttigieg (@PeteButtigieg) June 28, 2019

i) How does Mayor Buttboy define a "cage"? Is a chain-link enclosure a cage? If so, does that mean parents with fenced-in backyards are putting their kids in cages? Are fenced-in playgrounds cages? 

ii) Children are separated from parents when a parent is jailed or imprisoned for breaking the law. Are Democrats taking the position that having a child should literally be a get-out-of-jail-free card for parental felons? 

iii) In addition, there's no presumption that the adults are their parents. There's lots of child-trafficking at the border. Are these parents or smugglers? 

iv) The kids are being used a political prop for emotional blackmail. I feel sorry for the kids, but national policy can't be based on emotional blackmail. And we didn't create the crisis. People don't have a right to just show up at your house and demand to be cared for. 

AOC's 3-hanky performance

Grab your hankies while you watch AOC's heart-wrenching reaction as she sobs uncontrollably at the sight of a parking lot:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z70MO8I9rJ4&t=7s

The immigrant predicament

In my observation, social climbers often experience a dilemma of their own making. Let's consider two variations;

i) Poor parents, through thrift and grinding work, scrape together enough to send their kids to college. They want the best for their kids. They want their kids go have a better life than the parents had. 

But to their consternation, their kids become snobs who look down on their lower class, uneducated parents. 

ii) Immigrant parents working entry level jobs or a mom-and-pop business, scrimp and save in order to send their kids to college. And not just any old college, but the cream of the cream. They relentless drive their kids to do whatever it takes to get into the most prestigious universities. But the end-result is kids who look down on their parents. The kids move in a different social circle, a higher echelon, where they'd be ashamed to have their parents show up.

In both cases, the parents feel hurt. Yet the parents, by making the elite the goal and the standard of comparison, simultaneously make themselves an embarrassment to their high-achieving progeny. They programmed their kids to be status-conscious snobs. To view their parents as their social and cultural inferiors. 

Muslim bus drivers refuse to let guide dogs on board

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1295749/Muslim-bus-drivers-refuse-let-guide-dogs-board.html

Black, white, and other

Mikel Del Rosario

Sure. Well, this is an area where I feel I could grow the most in terms of the things that we discuss at the Center because I was born in the United States but I grew up in the Philippines, so I’m Filipino American but grew up in the Philippines as a missionary kid. My parents were with Campus Crusade for a while, and really especially in the South, the conversation between the African American community and the Anglo community is something that I felt that, one, I didn’t really understand as much, and then secondly, I’m not entirely sure how I fit in to that conversation, and so is it something where I just help facilitate or do I stand back and watch? Is there something I can do to speak into that and help people with reconciliation or whatever?

So that was interesting for me to be part of that conversation with a little bit of an outside, but also now living here in Texas for a number of years, too.

Well, when we were going to move into this area, one, as I’ve mentioned already, this is one area where I feel like I could grow the most just because not having grown up in the United States, really when I went to college in Southern California was the first time that I know as an adult that I moved to the United States, and the conversation in Southern California is very different than what we have in the South [Texas] here where there’s lots of Hispanics. There’s lots of Asians and it’s unless you’re in certain pockets, you don’t have a white majority in a lot of places.

Possibly because of the history and the region, the area. When we were doing ministry in Southern California with Vietnamese refugees and Hispanics, the Hispanic and Vietnamese Asian gang, those were the concerns, gang warfare between Asian gangs and Hispanic gangs, and so there wasn’t as much of a black-white conversation in Orange County, where we were at, at least the ministry that we were doing, and so walking into this for me was something kind of new.

Well, I think kind of like Amanda, I learned that for a lot of my white brothers and sisters that there’s this feeling of there’s almost a reverse ethnocentrism that happens if they get into the conversation in a certain place where they feel like, “Now I have to apologize for being white and what can I do?” 

To go back to the privilege walk, another thing I learned is we have different perspectives on what privilege actually is. So for example, one of the questions said if you grew up in an urban environment, take a couple of steps back, and I thought, “I didn’t know I was not privileged ’cause I grew up in an urban environment ’cause I felt sad for people who had to grow up in the corn.” I had hotels, and malls, and all kinds of things.

Well, it’s not just something you read about in a book. What a movie does is it helps you enter into something emotionally and so that was helpful for me. And then when it came to the readings, one, when we started branching out beyond simply the black-white conversation, not that it’s a simple conversation but exclusively focusing on that, one, I felt heard. I felt like less of a ghost. I felt even though I personally, in my experience growing up in the Philippines and then moving to the United States as an adult, I have not felt held back in any way whatsoever by the fact that I’m not white...

In terms of identity for me, it solidified in my mind how strongly certain people hold to ethnicity as part of their identity. Now for me personally, that’s not something I hold very, very strongly. I’m cognizant that that’s a part of who I am but I hold much more strongly to other things about me, like being a Christian, for example, whereas for other people, it’s a lot higher on their values list than for me, so just an awareness of that. Also an awareness of whenever someone looks at you, before you even open your mouth about the gospel or anything else, they’ve already formed some kind of an idea about who you are, and what you believe, and especially if you’re from different ethnicities, there may be an unspoken communication thing that’s already going on there that you need to understand, a pre-understanding that you need to know where they’re coming from so that you can engage better.

https://voice.dts.edu/tablepodcast/diversity-conversations/

State of emergency

Thus far I haven't said anything about Trump declaring a state of emergency to build the wall.

1. There's the question of whether that's illegal. Ironically, I've seen the legality of the action defended from unexpected quarters:

http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2019/01/trump-may-be-able-to-build-wall-harvard-analysts-say-but-then-the-ripples-will-widen/

2. Another objection is that it sets a terrible precedent. That may be true, but it's not as if Democrats exercise restraint so long as Republicans exercise restraint.

Also, just declaring something a national emergency isn't equivalent to declaring martial law. It doesn't mean a chief executive can do whatever he (or she) pleases from thereon out. For instance, there are judicial hurdles to clear.

3. I don't know how this will play politically. Depends in part on the follow-through. It does indicate that Trump is serious about keeping his campaign promises. And if he succeeds, it proves him to be someone who can get things done.

4. Since protecting the country from foreign maunders is surely part of his mandate as commander-in-chief, I can't get too worked up about whether this is executive overreach. For decades, illegal immigration has been a bipartisan failure. It's refreshing to have a president who making a determined effort to stop the raiding parties.

5. I'm also reminded of how Reagan defied the Boland Amendment. As an old Cold Warrior, Reagan was protecting the country from a Communist beachhead in Latin America. Good for him. That's his job.

Christians, Immigrants, and the Border

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/anxiousbench/2019/02/christians-immigrants-and-the-border/

The wall

We're in a game of chicken on the wall. When will the "partial" gov't shutdown end? Trump has threatened to close the border.

Most Republican leaders would blink, but he's not a conventional politician. The political risk for Republicans is that gov't shutdowns are generally unpopular. However, with the midterms behind us, the GOP is in no immediate peril, and by 2020, the shutdown will be forgotten while other issues occupy center stage. Moreover, this is a signature issue for Trump, so if he holds firm an wins, the base will rally behind him. 

But there's a political risk for Democrats, too. To begin with, many Americans oppose an open border policy. In addition, if the gov't shutdown continues, it may dawn on voters how expendable much of the Federal gov't really is. We're in the midst of a gov't shutdown, yet life goes on. It makes little appreciable difference. So why are we paying for all that extra gov't?

It's like popes who overplayed their hand by placing countries under edict to punish a rebellious monarch. But it backfired because Catholics discovered that life went on as usual with or without the sacraments. It made no discernible difference. 

What if a partial gov't shutdown sends the message that we have far more gov't than we need? It wasn't the end of the world after all. 

The Caravan

Predictably the liberal media had a freakout over the fracas on the Southern border. Tear-gassing children! A few observations:

i) From what I've read, most of the invaders were adult men. In addition, they threw rocks and bottles at border-control agents. I don't know if the tear gas was used to keep the invaders at bay or in self-defense (to protect the border-control agents).

ii) Tear-gas is actually a pretty mild way to repel a mob. Compare that to shooting marauders. 

iii) From what I've read, the Obama administration deployed the same tactics:

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/nov/26/obama-administration-used-tear-gas-border-once-mon/

Was the liberal media freaking out over that?

iv) This is a game of chicken. Who blinks first? The invaders decided to force the issue, so they were repelled. 

v) Using children as a human shield is a cynical tactic. A functional nation can't cave to that kind of open-ended extortion. Can't very well capitulate to whatever someone demands if they threaten to hurt a child (or put a child in harm's way) unless they get what they want. That's anarchy. That tactic mustn't be rewarded. There's no end to it. 

vi) National defense is fundamental duty of any head-of-state, while border control is fundamental component of national defense. You can't have national defense without border control. The Trump administration is doing what a commander-in-chief is supposed to do in that regard. 

vii) That's related in part to the right of private property. We can't open our doors to bandits who will plunder the country. Get on welfare, stay on welfare, commit ID theft, bankrupt the emergency rooms of hospitals, educate their kids at public expense. Siphon off social services they didn't pay into. These are raiding parties. They have no more right to barge in than looters, bank-robbers, house-burglars, and shoplifters. Border enforcement is necessary to protect private property. The livelihood of citizens. The medical and economic infrastructure. Not to mention introducing diseases into the host country. 

viii) In addition, when illegal immigrants commit voter fraud in sufficient numbers to swing elections, the defrauds citizens of the right of self-determination. 

Is immigration a human right?

http://thefederalist.com/2018/07/24/no-one-right-immigrate-united-states/

The caravan

https://stream.org/a-message-from-rev-samuel-rodriguez-the-caravan-of-immigrants/

https://stream.org/us-citizen-living-honduras-think-caravan/

Support all refugees!

In the antebellum period, countless so-called "Christians" lynched close to 5000 black Americans. In our day, how many so-called Christians are dehumanizing refugees?

— Tentative Apologist (@RandalRauser) October 26, 2018

Josef Mengele and Adolf Eichmann were refugees/asylum seekers who fled to Latin America. WWJD? In our own day, how many so-called Christians are dehumanizing refugees? 

Random thoughts on race

I'll say a few things on the perennial topic of race in American that I don't see discussed:

1. Is it ever appropriate to feel closer to members of your own race? I think that needs to be disambiguated. 

i) It's natural for many people to feel closest to their immediate family. If their family members are the same race, then they will feel closer to members of their own race.

However, that's misleading because the racial component is incidental. You'd have the same dynamic in a biracial family.

ii) I think it's natural for people to feel more at ease around other people who speak the same language. Suppose I'm an Anglo who can speak broken Spanish, or a Latino who can speak broken English. In situations where it's effortful to speak a different language, it's natural to prefer the company of people who speak the same language. You can just relax and have a conversation. You don't struggle to understand or be understood.

So people who belong to the same language group have a natural affinity or solidarity. It's easier for them to be around others who speak the same language. 

But once again the racial component is incidental. There are many examples of different racial or ethnic groups that speak the same language. Likewise, some people are fluently bilingual or polyglot. 

iii) Of course, there exceptions. There are missionaries who learn a second language, spend years working with that people-group. Become very attached to members of that people-group.

Likewise, a guy may fall in love with a woman who's native language is different from his own. Although it's a challenge for him to speak in her language, he will rise to the challenge, and acquire greater fluency by spending ever more time with her.

iv) Another example is a deaf child. The parents and siblings (if any) have to learn sign language. They do that because the familial bond is stronger than the linguistic bond. 

v) Friendship is based on more than a common language. People who dislike each other can have a common language. 

2. Given my views on illegal immigration, a friend once asked me if I thought we had a duty to report illegals to the authorities.

i) For the record, my objection to illegal immigration is that it results in things like ID theft of SS numbers, emergency rooms going bankrupt, illegals going on public assistance (for which taxpayers foot the bills), &c.  

ii) If I recall, I said private citizens aren't police informants. We don't have a civic duty to spy for the police. 

Now, if I was driving through my neighborhood and I saw a burglar breaking into a house, I'd report that. But what I do or don't report is a question of personal discretion.

For instance, kids violate ordinances about not skating in this or that place. Obviously, that's not the sort of thing I'd report. Indeed, we should be grateful when kids do something that innocuous. Same thing with people smoking in a public park. Stupid ordinances. 

iii) But there's another distinction. Years ago, Linda Chavez had to withdraw her nomination due to a "nannygate scandal". Now, I do think public officials ought to obey the laws they impose on the governed. 

That said, it isn't hypocritical to treat friends differently than strangers. Indeed, the essence of friendship is to give friends exceptional treatment. You do favors for a friend that you don't necessarily do for strangers. You make exceptions for a friend that you don't necessarily make for strangers. 

Hence, it wouldn't be hypocritical to oppose illegal immigration as a matter of policy, even if I treated certain illegals I personally know differently. Policy is about strangers, not individual friends. And, of course, the scale is completely different.  

3. Systematic discrimination against Asian students has been practiced by Ivy League universities.  My own position is that if, say, Asian-Americans got 80% of the slots at the Ivy Leagues because they outperform other ethnic groups, that's the way a competitive system is supposed to work. The best rise to the top. 

It's no different than sports. In sports, we don't take points off a winning team because it wins too often, and give those points to the losing team to artificially even the score.